Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Bamboo: Nature’s Remarkable Resource for Sustainable Materials, Fuels and Chemicals – A Perspective" is well presented and bring important information for researchers and stakeholders interested in bamboo. I congratulate the authors for writing this interesting manuscript. However, before publication, I recommend that the authors address the following issues:

1 - Graphical abstract: Correct "woody palnt".

2 - The authors used fibres and fibers throughout the text. 

3 - Improve quality of Figure 4. 

4 - I suggest including a better Figure describing the morphology and structure of bamboo. The authors can use some of Walter Liese's publications. 

5 - Bamboo in textiles, line 294: "Bamboo fibers, shown in Figure 7, such as jute, flax, and hemp are primarily bast fibers of cellulose....." Correct would be: Bamboo fibers, shown in Figure 7, and other natural fibres such as jute, flax, and hemp are primarily bast lignocellulose fibres...." These natural fibres are not 100% cellulose. Therefore, the correct term would be lignocellulose fibres. 

6 - Figure 7: bast fibres extracted from bamboo....not cellulose. 

7 - Section 4, Lines 421-423: What do the authors mean? This sentence is confusing. 

8 - Section 4, Line 439: 9 hours and 55 hours respectively??

9 - Section 4, Line 528-540: The sentences in this paragraph are not connected. Mixing of different topics. I suggest re-wording. 

10 - Section 4, Lines 546-565: I suggest including this paper in the discussion: "Bamboo reinforced concrete: a critical review" by Hector Archila et al. Bamboo modulus of elasticity = 20 GPa, not 20 MPa. 

11- Section 5, Lines 738-746: again, the sentences are not connected and the topics are mixed in the same paragraph. Suggest re-wording. 

12- I think it would be nice if the authors add a table with major breakthroughs related to each area focused on the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The manuscript "Bamboo: Nature’s Remarkable Resource for Sustainable Materials, Fuels and Chemicals – A Perspective" is well presented and bring important information for researchers and stakeholders interested in bamboo. I congratulate the authors for writing this interesting manuscript. However, before publication, I recommend that the authors address the following issues:

1 - Graphical abstract: Correct "woody palnt".

Response: Thank you for your meticulous review of our manuscript. Your expert review is well received. The table of content has been revised, and corrections have been made.

2 - The authors used fibres and fibers throughout the text. 

Response: This has been revised accordingly and the British variant “Fibre(s)” is used instead

3 - Improve quality of Figure 4. 

Response: Fig 4 was reproduced as it appears in Ref. 52 and any alteration may become a copyright issue.

4 - I suggest including a better Figure describing the morphology and structure of bamboo. The authors can use some of Walter Liese's publications.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. A new Fig 7 has been added alongside Fig 6 to describe the morphology and structure of bamboo with reference to Walter Liese’s publication Ref. 102

5 - Bamboo in textiles, line 294: "Bamboo fibers, shown in Figure 7, such as jute, flax, and hemp are primarily bast fibers of cellulose....." Correct would be: Bamboo fibers, shown in Figure 7, and other natural fibres such as jute, flax, and hemp are primarily bast lignocellulose fibres...." These natural fibres are not 100% cellulose. Therefore, the correct term would be lignocellulose fibres.

Response: This line has been revised accordingly.

6 - Figure 7: bast fibres extracted from bamboo....not cellulose.

Response: Revised accordingly.

7 - Section 4, Lines 421-423: What do the authors mean? This sentence is confusing. 

Response: Lines 421 – 423 have been revised.

8 - Section 4, Line 439: 9 hours and 55 hours respectively??

Response: Line 439 has been revised.

9 - Section 4, Line 528-540: The sentences in this paragraph are not connected. Mixing of different topics. I suggest re-wording. 

Response: Lines 528 – 540 have been revised.

10 - Section 4, Lines 546-565: I suggest including this paper in the discussion: "Bamboo reinforced concrete: a critical review" by Hector Archila et al. Bamboo modulus of elasticity = 20 GPa, not 20 MPa. 

11- Section 5, Lines 738-746: again, the sentences are not connected and the topics are mixed in the same paragraph. Suggest re-wording. 

Response: Lines 546 – 565 have been have been revised and the suggested paper have been added to this section as Ref. 157.

12- I think it would be nice if the authors add a table with major breakthroughs related to each area focused on the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion but we would not be adding such a table in this work as we have another work that we are currently working on to include such information.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reports a review on the uses of bamboo as green alternative for several applications. The topic falls within the scope of the journal. I recommend the following revisions:

• In the paragraph 1.2, the authors should mention that polymers obtained from vegetation sources (such as pectins, cellulose, starch,..) can be combined with ecocompatible clay nanoparticles to generate smart biocompatible materials useful for different applications, including food packaging [Applied Clay Science, 2020, 185, 105416], restoration [Applied Clay Science, 2021, 213, 106231; ACS Applied Nano Materials, 2019, 2(5), pp. 3169–3176] and medicine [International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 101, 2017, 254-272].
• A statistical analysis on the scientific publications related to use of bamboo for the sustainable materials, fuels and chemical should be conducted. In particular, I suggest to report the distribution per year of the published articles within the last decades. In addition, it would be interesting to perform separated stastical analyses for each applications presented in the review.
• The manuscript presents 16 figures. In my opinion, the authors should reduce the total number of the figures. To this purpose, some images could be embedded in single figures. In addition, the figures on the molecular structure of biopolymers could be removed.
• Graphical Abstract. The text is hardly readable. Please revise.
• Similarly to previous comment, Fig. 4 should be revised to make the text more clear.

Author Response

The paper reports a review on the uses of bamboo as green alternative for several applications. The topic falls within the scope of the journal. I recommend the following revisions:

• In the paragraph 1.2, the authors should mention that polymers obtained from vegetation sources (such as pectins, cellulose, starch,..) can be combined with ecocompatible clay nanoparticles to generate smart biocompatible materials useful for different applications, including food packaging [Applied Clay Science, 2020, 185, 105416], restoration [Applied Clay Science, 2021, 213, 106231; ACS Applied Nano Materials, 2019, 2(5), pp. 3169–3176] and medicine [International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 101, 2017, 254-272].

Response: Thank you for your expert review of this manuscript; it is appreciated. However, we would not be adding those suggested references as they do not fall within the scope of section 1.2.

• A statistical analysis on the scientific publications related to use of bamboo for the sustainable materials, fuels and chemical should be conducted. In particular, I suggest to report the distribution per year of the published articles within the last decades. In addition, it would be interesting to perform separated stastical analyses for each applications presented in the review.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion; however, we are currently working on a study that will incorporate the distribution of bamboo vegetation in recent times and also statistical analysis of bamboo for sustainable materials, fuels, and chemicals. Hence, statistical analysis and distribution of bamboos fall outside the scope of the current work.

• The manuscript presents 16 figures. In my opinion, the authors should reduce the total number of the figures. To this purpose, some images could be embedded in single figures. In addition, the figures on the molecular structure of biopolymers could be removed.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion; however, because the usage of figures helps the reader understand the content of a paper easily, we ensured to balance the figures in the current paper to reflect our intentions to a wide range of readers. Hence, we do not consider the number figures extreme. Moreover, the way the paper is structured embedding them into a single figure will not be ideal.

• Graphical Abstract. The text is hardly readable. Please revise.

Response: This has been revised accordingly, and the fonts enhanced.

• Similarly to previous comment, Fig. 4 should be revised to make the text more clear.

Response: Fig 4 was reproduced as it appears in Ref. 52 and any alteration may become a copyright issue.

Reviewer 3 Report

The review provides a series of fundamental information about the bamboo-based resources and their potential applications in some fields. These contents are interesting and fall well within the scope of SUSTAINABILITY. I recommend some improvements.

 

• The systematicness and integrity can be improved, e.g. Figure 1 and Figure 2 seem no close relationship with the present topic.
• The important extracts from bamboo such as cellulose and lignin are important, what are the differences with those from other plants, and their advantages?
• Being a scientific article, the association with the advanced techniques can be more concrete.  

Author Response

The review provides a series of fundamental information about the bamboo-based resources and their potential applications in some fields. These contents are interesting and fall well within the scope of SUSTAINABILITY. I recommend some improvements.

Thank you for your expert review of this manuscript. We appreciate your comments and suggestions that has helped build the strength of the paper.

 

• The systematic-ness and integrity can be improved, e.g. Figure 1 and Figure 2 seem no close relationship with the present topic.

Response: Fig 1 and 2 are relevant to section 1.1.  exemplifies nature’s unrivalled engineering ingenuity abounding around us, a clear demonstration of highly evolved structure-function relation, which is the bedrock of science and technology. Hence, the relevance of those figures to the reader.

• The important extracts from bamboo such as cellulose and lignin are important, what are the differences with those from other plants, and their advantages?

Response: Thank you for your comments; however, the scope of the current work does not aim at comparing the difference in properties and chemical constituents between different types of plant-derived cellulose and lignin materials. It is general knowledge that cellulose and lignin from various plant materials differ in their characteristics, even with those from the same species: polymeric systems are well-known characteristics. However, we are currently doing a research on the differences in plant celluloses and lignins and how to optimize these differences in materials application.

• Being a scientific article, the association with the advanced techniques can be more concrete.  

Response: We do not fully understand the message you are trying to convey here but we have, however, revised some sections of the manuscript to strengthen the science and technology in the current work for a wide range of readers.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a comprehensive article regarding different possibilities that bamboo as a sustainable material can provide in different industries. I believe the authors have done a great job gathering such a massive database of existing literature on bamboo use in different applications.

• Please increase the quality of the texts in the Graphical abstract.
• A significant portion of the Introduction section is unrelated to the topic of the article. Please consider removing lines that are not related to bamboo.
• The introduction part is very scattered. One can hardly find out what the main topic of this article is.
• This reviewer suggests sections 1.1 and 1.2  get removed from the manuscript following the abovementioned points.
• It should be noted lignocellulosic biomass can also be produced easily from agricultural waste. Maybe, this is not the strongest point to support the planting and use of bamboo.
• Section 2.1 can be moved a few pages back in the text.
• Please move the headline "3. Bamboo in Textiles" to the next page.
• Line 444: Missing space between "483 MPa" and "hence".
• Line 469: Please reconsider the citation format.
• Line 484: This reviewer recently refereed an article by this team to numerically verify the results of their experiments in an article entitled "Non-linear Numerical Modelling of Sustainable Advanced Composite Columns Made from Bamboo Culms" in Construction Materials Journal by MDPI. The authors might be interested to add this numerical study to their existing database. 
• Line 555: It might be best not to add a commercial name of a product or a company in a scientific article.
• Line 789: Maybe there is not much need to indicate the sundry use of bamboo since it is quite well-established worldwide.

Author Response

This is a comprehensive article regarding different possibilities that bamboo as a sustainable material can provide in different industries. I believe the authors have done a great job gathering such a massive database of existing literature on bamboo use in different applications.

Thank you for your comments and recommendations, it is highly appreciated.

• Please increase the quality of the texts in the Graphical abstract.

Thank you. The texts quality of the Graphical abstract has been improved.

• A significant portion of the Introduction section is unrelated to the topic of the article. Please consider removing lines that are not related to bamboo.

Thank you. While we do not fully understand your comment as you were not specific it is important that we point out that the introduction section demonstrates the ingenuity of nature over science. And how nature presents prototypes for the scientific community to mimic towards sustainable development. A brief overview of nature’s inventiveness in terms of material design and multifunctionality, yet benign is a testament that humanity has a lot to learn from nature even as pursue sustainable development.

• The introduction part is very scattered. One can hardly find out what the main topic of this article is.

Thank you. Again, we do not fully grasp what you mean by “scattered”. Evidently, Section 1.1 “Designs and Gifts of Nature” is an introduction to the endowments  of nature and the promises they hold for humanity towards eco-designs and sustainability mandate.

• This reviewer suggests sections 1.1 and 1.2  get removed from the manuscript following the abovementioned points.

Thank you. The authors do not agree there is justification for the removal of sections 1.1 “Designs and Gifts of Nature” and 1.2 “Green Vegetation as Sources of Fuels and Materials”, as suggested. In addition, coupled with the fact that the title of the manuscript is: “Bamboo: Nature’s Remarkable Resource for Sustainable Materials, Fuels and Chemicals – A Perspective”. This perspective embraces the authors’ objective bias and not subjective per se. Moreover, sections 1.1. and 1.2 are valid for a variety of readers for reassessing and reevaluating the fundamentals of that nature’s designs and the opportunities it affords humankind towards a sustainability development.

• It should be noted lignocellulosic biomass can also be produced easily from agricultural waste. Maybe, this is not the strongest point to support the planting and use of bamboo.

Thank you. While we dot fault the fact that lignocellulosic biomass can be readily sourced from agricultural waste. The objectivity in arguing for a dedicated vegetation for biomass derivation are anchored on many justifications, which two points will suffice. 1. The environmental benefits of Bamboo plantation such as mitigation of desertification; 2. Improve the carbon capturing circle and mitigate global warming.

• Section 2.1 can be moved a few pages back in the text.

Thank you. The reviewer has not justified why Section 2.1 should be moved a few pages back in the text. Neither did the reviewer demonstrate the particular place for Section 2.1 suitability.

• Please move the headline "3. Bamboo in Textiles" to the next page.

Thank you. Again it is not clear which “next page” being referred to.

• Line 444: Missing space between "483 MPa" and "hence".

Thank you. Line 444 has been revised accordingly.

 

• Line 469: Please reconsider the citation format.

Thank you. Line 469 has been revised accordingly.

• Line 484: This reviewer recently refereed an article by this team to numerically verify the results of their experiments in an article entitled "Non-linear Numerical Modelling of Sustainable Advanced Composite Columns Made from Bamboo Culms" in Construction Materials Journal by MDPI. The authors might be interested to add this numerical study to their existing database. 

Thank you for your suggestion. However, incorporating the numerical study of the referenced work, in Line 484, is outside the scope of the discussion therein.

• Line 555: It might be best not to add a commercial name of a product or a company in a scientific article.

Thank you. Line 555 has been revised accordingly, with the removal of product/company name, except for the referenced web link.

• Line 789: Maybe there is not much need to indicate the sundry use of bamboo since it is quite well-established worldwide.

Thank you. The justification for Section 7. “Sundry Uses of Bamboos” affords the reader a quick overview of the almost limitless opportunities biobased resources (e.g., Bamboos) offers humanity towards the concerted effort for environmental sustainability.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did not consider any suggestions of my previous report.

Author Response

Thank you very much indeed for your recommendation. We did consider all recommendations and implemented them in the revised version. But we did not want to cite unnecessary and irrelevant references.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript’s quality substantially and their responses are clear and convinced.

Author Response

Thank you very much indeed for your recommendation